From: Kees B. <kee...@xs...> - 2007-03-22 20:21:28
|
Op woensdag 21 maart 2007 13:52, schreef Don Allingham: > I think that would work. There are a few issues/comments: > > 1) Separate db directories are a good idea. Upgrades could be handled > easily, since we would be able to see older directories. That way, > the upgrade process would be non-destructive. If the upgrade fails, > the old version is still there. Are you suggesting for each database its own directory? In that case I think it is a good move. Just recently I found out about the (hidden?) ~/.gramps directory with lots of subdirectories and files. Call me stupid but I was just deleting the grdb file after some experiment and assumed that was it. > 2) A management tool would be good. It would definitely clean up the > management of files. Agreed. And for me as a tester I really want to be able to delete a database. (Probably not useful for regular users.) > 3) The new structure would free us from the single file grdb that we > have now. Each "table" could be its own separate file, improving > performance. (Each file would be smaller and easier/faster to resize) > 4) XML backup would need to be a *lot* faster than it currently is. If > someone has a 100K person db, we can't wait three minutes for it to > backup. > > The page that Benny pointed us to was very valuable. It seems that we > are not the only ones who fight the issues and problems with BSDDB. > > Don Also I want to temper your enthousiasm of creating hidden files. That's not my cup of tea. More visibility (with sufficient explanation) doesn't have to be a bad thing. The current problem may be that there is only one file visible when that is not enough to see the whole picture. Suppose someone finds that hidden file you're talking about. What if that file is deleted? You're equally screwed. So, just hiding is a bad thing if you ask me. -- Kees |